Skip to main content

Student record 2018/19 - Further guidance on collaborative supervision arrangements

Back to C18051

Student record 2018/19 - Further guidance on collaborative supervision arrangements

Version 1.0 Produced 2018-07-06

The purpose is: to capture all cases where there is a formal collaborative arrangement to provide doctoral research training for a student or students. This could include anything from a large Doctoral Training Partnership or Centre for Doctoral Training, to a student on a Knowledge Transfer Partnership, or a co-tutelle du thèse or other joint supervision agreement for a single student. The collaborative arrangements only need to be returned when there is a formal agreement and an exchange of funds in recognition of the supervisory effort takes place.

Two scenarios have been identified which could include formal joint supervision:

1) Concurrent collaboration or joint supervision
This is where a student is being supervised by supervisors at more than one provider during the same academic session. Only the lead provider should be returning the student's data.

2) Sequential collaboration
This is where a student commences studies with one provider and subsequently moves to a different provider to continue their studies as part of the same programme. For example these could be students who study for a one-year MRes followed by three-year PhD, or those who join a collaborative PhD programme where the lead provider is not determined until after year one.

Each of these collaborative provision scenarios requires a different approach to reporting in the HESA Student record.

Flow diagrams have been drawn up to help with decision making and reporting of collaborative provision. This includes details on whether or not you are the right provider to return a student, country specific decisions, and the 'hand-over' procedure for sequential collaborations.

Concurrent collaboration or joint supervision

In the case of students at partnerships where the application and administration is handled jointly with no concept of a single provider responsible for the student's teaching / supervision students should still be returned by a single provider for their entire programme to prevent double-counting.

The majority of the consortia involved in this type of provision have the concept of a 'lead provider' for individual students. Where applicable, this provider alone should be responsible for returning the student to HESA for their entire programme. Where no such concept exists, a single provider should be nominated from amongst the consortia for this purpose.

Use the REFData.UOAPCNT to record the percentage of time in Units of Assessment. It is expected that the same provider will return the student for the duration of their studies.

This method requires a REFData entity for every combination of collaborating partner (COLPROV) and REF unit of assessment code (UOA2014).

UOA2014 is not required if the collaborating partner is not eligible to submit to REF. If the collaborating partner does not have a UKPRN, one of the generic codes can be used for he COLPROV field.

Sequential collaboration

In cases of sequential collaboration a provider can pass the reporting responsibilities on to another provider after their own involvement ceases. This would typically occur where a student is taking a one-year MRes followed by a PhD.

Where a transfer occurs providers are required to complete a number of data items to enable linking across providers.

If a provider is not in the HESA Student constituency then providers must continue to return the student using the Concurrent method.

Reporting for the first provider

The Instance.COLTOPROV field records the UKPRN of the provider to whom reporting responsibilities are being transferred. This must be used with the new Instance.RSNEND code 12 'Transferred out as part of collaborative supervision arrangements'. The date on which the transfer happened must be recorded in Instance.COLTODATE and this should align with the Instance.COLFROMDATE recorded by the second provider.

If there is no interim PGR awards then Instance.ENDDATE will be the same as Instance.COLTODATE. If there is an interim award, Instance.ENDDATE will be when the award was confirmed. Instance.ENDDATE can be null if the award is not confirmed in the current reporting year. If an award is reported from dormancy Instance.RSNEND must be coded 12, but Instance.COLTODATE and Instance.COLTODPROV will be optional.

Reporting for the second provider

Where reporting responsibilities for a student on a collaborative supervision arrangement change the second provider must return the following three fields:

  • Instance.COLFROMPROV - this records the UKPRN of the provider that previously held reporting responsibility for the student and is only required in the first reporting year in which the student is reported by the provider.
  • Instance.COLFROMDATE - this records the date at which reporting responsibilities changes and should broadly align with the Instance.COLTODATE reported by the previous reporting provider. This is only required in the first reporting year in which the student is reported by the provider.
  • Instance.NUMHUSPREV - this records the Instance.NUMHUS used by the previous provider and is used to facilitate linking. The Student.HUSID must be retained in order to facilitate linking.

Instance.COMDATE must also be consistent across both providers and reflect the start date of the original instance. Allowances would be made in Continuity validation to allow the second provider to report an instance with an Instance.COMDATE in a previous year.

An Entry Profile will be required from the second provider. This is because HESA is not a signatory to the data sharing agreements between the providers, and so would not have assurance that allowing the second provider to see Entry Profile data from the first provider, would be in line with the requirements for fair processing under the Data Protection Act.

Instance.YEARPRG and Instance.YEARSTU should continue to increment from the previous provider.

For the provider taking over responsibility the students that have transferred in will appear on the Expected Instance Population for the following year, but differentiated from other students in this report.

Impacts on the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Survey

Where a sequential collaborative supervision arrangement results in an interim award at one provider and the Instance.RSNEND indicates a transfer within a collaborative provision, the Instance will be excluded from the Graduate Outcomes survey population for the interim award at that provider.

Examples

Example 1 - concurrent supervision

A student studies in a formal, collaborative arrangement where there is concurrent supervision. Poppleton University is providing the majority of supervision (70%) with Poppleton College responsible for the remaining 30%. The student is studying on a programme with a standard year structure (i.e. all activity is contained within the reporting period). There is no taught element to the course. The supervision responsibilities change in the second year with Poppleton College increasing their share. As the example is illustrative only the first two years of the programme are included. Poppleton University would return the following:

  HUSID NUMHUS COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE COLPROV (1) REFUOA (1) UOAPCNT (1) COLPROV (2) REFUOA (2) UOAPCNT (2)
Year 1 1234567890123 1 2015-08-01 D00 01   01 70 22222222 01 30
Year 2 1234567890123 1 2015-08-01 D00 01   01 60 22222222 01 40

Poppleton University is the lead provider and is responsible for reporting the student to HESA. Poppleton College would not return the student. The COLPROV (1) field is left blank as it is not necessary to report your own UKPRN. The UKPRN of Poppleton College is reported in the second occurrence of the REFData.COLPROV field.

If there was a split of 50/50 supervision of a student between two HE providers in the UK, then the providers involved would need to agree which one was reporting the student. If there was a split of 50/50 supervision with a HE provider in the UK and a HE provider overseas, or 50/50 supervision with a partner in industry, then the HE provider (in the UK) would need to return the student.

Example 2 - concurrent supervision

A student is studying on a PGR programme that will have joint supervision however in the first year all supervision is through Poppleton University. In the second year there is concurrent supervision and a formal arrangement between Poppleton University and Poppleton College to share supervision. As the example is illustrative only the first two years of the programme are included. Poppleton University would return the following:

  HUSID NUMHUS COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE COLPROV (1) REFUOA (1) UOAPCNT (1) COLPROV (2) REFUOA (2) UOAPCNT (2)
Year 1 1234567890123 1 2015-08-01 D00 01   01 100      
Year 2 1234567890123 1 2015-08-01 D00 01   01 60 22222222 01 40

Example 3 - concurrent supervision with a partner in industry

A student is studying on a PGR programme, with Poppleton University, where there is concurrent supervision with a partner in industry (4004) for the second year. As the example is illustrative only the first two years of the programme are included. Poppleton University would return the following:

  HUSID NUMHUS COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE COLPROV (1) REFUOA (1) UOAPCNT (1) COLPROV (2) REFUOA (2) UOAPCNT (2)
Year 1 1234567890123 1 2015-08-01 D00 01   01 100      
Year 2 1234567890123 1 2015-08-01 D00 01   01 60 4004   40

Note: Units of Assessment are not required for partners in industry, therefore the REFUOA (2) is blank.

Example 4 - sequential collaboration

A student studies their first year of a 1+3 course at Poppleton College (provider A, UKPRN: 22222222) before transferring to Poppleton University (provider B, UKPRN: 11111111) for the final 3 years to complete their PhD. The course years are contained within the HESA reporting period.

  Provider HUSID NUMHUS NUMHUSPREV COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE ENDDATE RSNEND COLTOPROV COLTODATE COLFROMPROV COLFROMDATE QUAL
Year 1 A 1234567890123 1   2015-08-01 D00 01              
Year 2 A 1234567890123 1   2015-08-01 D00 63 2016-11-01 12 11111111 2016-07-31     M01
Year 2 B 1234567890123 2 1 2015-08-01 D00 01         22222222 2016-07-31  
Year 3 B 1234567890123 2 1 2015-08-01 D00              
Year 4 B 1234567890123 2 1 2015-08-01 D00              
Year 5 B 1234567890123 2 1 2015-08-01 D00 63 2018-12-01         D00

Example 5 - sequential collaboration

A student studies their first year of a 1+3 course at Poppleton College (provider A) before transferring to Poppleton University (provider B) for the final 3 years to complete their PhD. The course years are not contained within the HESA reporting period.

  Provider HUSID NUMHUS NUMHUSPREV COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE STULOAD ENDDATE RSNEND COLTOPROV COLTODATE COLFROMPROV COLFROMDATE QUAL
Year 1 A 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 01 60              
Year 2 A 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 01 40 2017-07-01 12 11111111 2016-12-31     M01
Year 2 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01 60         22222222 2016-12-31  
Year 3 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01 100              
Year 4 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01 100              
Year 5 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01 40 2020-04-31 01         D00

As shown above, the Instance.STULOAD would be reduced in year 2 with each provider only reflecting the activity related to the students activity with them. Over the duration of the 4 years we would expect the STULOADs to sum to approximately 400 in this example.

Example 6 - sequential collaboration

A student studies for one year at Poppleton College (provider A) for the equivalent of an MRes before moving to Poppleton University (provider B) to complete their PhD. The student then takes a break in their studies during their third year of their four year programme. All bar the final year of study are non-standard and span HESA reporting years.

  Provider HUSID NUMHUS NUMHUSPREV COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE MCDATE ENDDATE RSNEND COLTOPROV COLTODATE COLFROMPROV COLFROMDATE QUAL
Year 1 A 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 01                
Year 2 A 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 01   2017-07-01 12 11111111 2016-12-31     M01
Year 2 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01           22222222 2016-12-31  
Year 3 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 73 2018-01-01              
Year 4 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01 2019-01-01              
Year 5 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01                
Year 6 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01   2021-04-31 01         D00

Note: Instance.MCDATE is applicable for providers in England and Northern Ireland only.

Example 7 - sequential collaboration

A student studies for one year at Poppleton College (provider A) for the equivalent of an MRes before moving to Poppleton University (provider B) to complete their PhD. The student decides to take a break in their studies during after completing their first year with Poppleton College but before actively resuming study at Poppleton University. The student eventually resumes study in October 2017. As provider B may not physically see the student and therefore might not always have sufficient data and authority from the student to allow them to make a HESA return for the student, the provider A should continue returning the student as dormant until they start at provider B.

   
  Provider HUSID NUMHUS NUMSPREV COMDATE COURSEAIM MODE ENDDATE RSNEND COLTOPROV COLTODATE COLFROMPROV COLFROMDATE QUAL
Year 1 A 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 01              
Year 2 A 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 01          
Year 3 a 1234567890123 1   2016-01-01 D00 63 2017-07-01 12 11111111 2016-12-31     M01
Year 3 B 1234567890123 2 1 2016-01-01 D00 01         22222222 2016-12-31  
Year 4 B 1234567890123 2   2016-01-01 D00 01              
Year 5 B 1234567890123 2   2016-01-01 D00 01            
Year 6 B 1234567890123 2   2016-01-01 D00 01 2020-04-31 01       D00

In the second year, provider B would return the student as Instance.MODE = 63. They would not need to return the student as Instance.MODE = 73 and would also not need to return a Instance.MCDATE as the student has only just started with them.

Example 8

Provider A has funding from another provider (B) as part of a DTP arrangement but the students are registered with provider A. This does not constitute joint supervision and therefore would not be captured in the proposed new fields. This is not a franchise arrangement either so we do not believe it would have any impact on the Module.TINST and Module.PCOLAB fields. Assuming that there is no joint supervision then provider B's role would not be reflected in the Student record.

Contact Liaison by email or on 01242 211144.